Book details and chapters

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and destructiveHint=false, so safety is covered. The description adds useful behavioral context beyond that: the return payload includes metadata fields and a per-unit table of contents with line ranges, which tells the agent what granularity of chapter boundaries to expect.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Two sentences, no filler. The payload description comes first and the workflow guidance ('call before read_passage') is front-loaded at the end where it is easiest to act on.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With an output schema present, the description need not enumerate return values, and it correctly focuses on scope, contents, and call ordering. Annotations cover safety, the sole parameter is fully documented in the schema, and the relationship to read_passage is stated — nothing needed to call this correctly is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and the single 'id' parameter is already documented with range and examples in the schema itself. The description adds no id syntax, format, or lookup detail beyond what the schema supplies, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource ('Get one Project Gutenberg book's metadata... and its table of contents') and enumerates exactly what the TOC contains (chapters, letters, staves, acts, scenes with start/end line numbers). It is clearly distinguishable from siblings like search_books and read_passage by naming the latter directly.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives explicit sequencing guidance: 'Call this before read_passage to pick a chapter,' which tells the agent when this tool is the right entry point. It stops short of a full when-not/alternative matrix (e.g., when to prefer book_stats or find_in_book instead), but the primary workflow is unambiguous.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.